Ludus FastMCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a 'Formatted status string' and that 'user_id' is 'admin only', which adds some context about output format and permissions. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies reading). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple single parameter, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose, parameter semantics, and output format. However, for a status-checking tool in a complex deployment environment with many siblings, it lacks guidance on when to use it versus alternatives and could provide more behavioral context (e.g., is it cached, real-time?).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the single parameter by stating 'user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)', explaining it's optional and has admin restrictions. However, it doesn't specify the format of the user_id (e.g., string pattern) or what happens if omitted. With one parameter and partial semantic clarification, this meets the baseline for adequate but incomplete coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get one-line deployment status with emoji indicators.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('deployment status') with a specific output format ('one-line with emoji indicators'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_deployment_status' or 'monitor_deployment', which likely provide more detailed status information.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions that the 'user_id' parameter is 'admin only', which hints at a permission requirement, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_deployment_status' or 'monitor_deployment'. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.